https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277318 A writing framed primarily as a receipt for money, even though it stated a repayment time and interest, was treated as a receipt rather than a promissory note because it was not intended to operate as a negotiable instrument; it was therefore not inadmissible for want of proper stamp. Because the document did not contain the whole bargain, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act did not exclude oral evidence to prove the real nature of the transaction and a later arrangement said to have been made in 1919. Repayment was not proved, and the claim was held not to be barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:17:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277318 A writing framed primarily as a receipt for money, even though it stated a repayment time and interest, was treated as a receipt rather than a promissory note because it was not intended to operate as a negotiable instrument; it was therefore not inadmissible for want of proper stamp. Because the document did not contain the whole bargain, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act did not exclude oral evidence to prove the real nature of the transaction and a later arrangement said to have been made in 1919. Repayment was not proved, and the claim was held not to be barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Apr 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277318